The absence of religion is not a religion

From time to time religious people claim that atheism is a religion too [1]. This is strange for – at least – two reasons. First of all; how can the absence of something be this very thing? How can the absence of religion be a religion? And, secondly, how come religious people take the right to define atheism from their world-view, i.e., that everybody has to have a belief?

The latter actually reflects the problem we are facing here rather well. Since a vast majority of the worlds population is religious of some sort, religious people simply take the right to define the reference frame from which to judge everyone’sviews on their own religious beliefs.

This reference frame, sort of, sits in the word “atheism” itself. Atheism is defined about theism. It should be the other way round. Let’s illustrate this by trying to replace the word “atheism” with a different name, e.g., “freethinker” [2]. If we call all people that are free from religion freethinkers than Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hinduists, Jews, Shintoists, etc., are afreethinkers or non-freethinkers.

Get the point? Hope so. But let’s take a one more example. Ghosts. I know that many people believe in ghosts, but the vast majority does not [3]. Hence, you would assume that someone you just met somewhere in the street does not believe in ghosts. You might, however, eventually find that this person actually does believe in ghost [4]. Now, the question is: how many people would have to believe in ghosts to swing the balance, so that is you that has to come out as an “aghostic”?

Since repetition seems to be a useful concept in pedagogics, let’s add yet another example. Science. If I am supposed to “believe” in the Higgs particle (yes, pun intended), I reasonably ask for the evidence (see, e.g., here for the current status). Similar to so fantastic a thing as gravitational waves [5]. Now, if I tell you there is a teapot in some orbit around the sun, and you do not believe me, how would you feel if I tried to define your non-believing in the existence of this teapot by calling you an ateapotist and claim that your non-belief in the teapot is as good as mine, i.e., it too is “a belief”?

Well, this is the classical burden of proof problem. In the case of the teapot or the ghost, most people will see the point. But when it comes to religion the claim that atheism is a religion too remains widespread.

But it is nevertheless false.

Notes:

[1] Religious people do, of course, their best to spread this claim which I see as nothing but cheap propaganda. Guess it helps them to reduce their cognitive dissonances and makes them feel better. A recent example from Sweden is found here. A good comment and some background on this article by Jonna Bornemark are given by Patrik Lindenfors.
[2] I don’t think this is a right word in this context and in a way the word “freethinker” contains the same problem as “atheist”, but, for the sake of the argument, let’s use it here.
[3] Though I might be wrong with my “significant majority” believe here.
[4] And you might be okay with it as long as the person does not try to convince you and does not do you any harm based on this ghost-believing thing.
[5] Wow, look at the list of authors at the end of this paper and compare it with the author list of some “holy” scripture …

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

3 Comments

সংশপ্তক
March 19, 2016 at 8:42 am

Can atheism become a doctrine or dogma just like radical environmentalism or animal right activism ? I hope not but I can not rule out the possibility either. My standing on this issue is rather skeptic , agnostic. I do not see any reason or logic to believe in any theocratic dogma or organized religion. However, I would be more inclined to call myself a skeptic than an atheist.

Religion is dangerous not because it invokes a God with or without a temple. Religion is dangerous because it enforces a doctrine of dogma. without substantiating it’s existence above any kind of rationality or criticial thought process. When being an atheist prevents one from exercising rationality and critical thinking , atheism becomes more like a dogma, doctrine and almost identical like a religion.

“Robert Anton Wilson Once said , “Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. ” Thank you.

A Rahman
March 9, 2016 at 6:35 pm

I am amazed to see that somebody would take up such a vacuous topic as the ‘absence of a religion (i.e. atheism) is not a religion’ and use it to display his intellectual pedigree. The author simply does not understand the meaning when someone says ‘atheism is a religion’ or he purposely blocks out his senses to appreciate the meaning. Let me make it clear to him.
When somebody says ‘atheism is a religion’, he does not exactly mean atheism as a religion in the normal sense of the term. What he means is that a person may hold the concept of non-existence of God or gods as dearly or as strongly as someone holding religious beliefs. A religion (be it Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism and so forth) has a holy book or books, a set of moral codes and values, a set of rules, a defined way of worship etc. None of these things exists in atheism. Or does the author believe that atheists go everyday or once a week to a certain place (called the place of worship) where they shout out in chorus ‘I don’t believe in God’, ‘I don’t believe in God’?
The imbecile attitude taken by the author here is similar to what I saw recently when another author (of similar mindset) strongly started to contradict a statement that ‘religion is a virus of the mind’. That author kept asking, does that virus cause tumour or cancer, can it be cured by anti-biotics, can it be operated upon etc? At the end, he said that as a medical professional, he had never come across a virus of mind. What can you say to that ‘medical professional’, except saying that he should not wade into areas about which he is totally ignorant? This ‘virus of mind’ is not exactly virus, it is similar in effect to the virus of the body system.
These are to some extent metaphorical expressions. If someone fails to appreciate the meaning or sense, then he should leave it alone.

As a fellow Bengali (who was born and raised in the US), I am deeply saddened to hear of an uncle die. It is an atrocity for the family and activists as well as Bangladesh. I have to say though, atheism is in it of itself a form of extremism (the quite opposite side) of the religious extremists. When we have extremist mentalities (whether totally right or totally left), we become blind to the middle ground of where all the good things lie.

I do agree that Islamic fundamentalism (along with every other fundamentalist religious sect) is the antipathy of what the purpose of religion is. The purpose of religion is to help one deal with life, nothing more or less. Those who pledge allegiance to God and do atrocities are no better than those who deny God and insist on perpetually demeaning those who are not religious.

I was born Hindu, was an atheist as a child, an agnostnic as a teenager and young adult, and now I am going to join the Catholic faith, for it has given me a few things in life that I have never had. But as one who has lived through these cycles, I continue to fight fundamentalists (within the Church) but also battle my fellow atheists who are denying something greater in their life.

Anyway, these are my 2 cents. Anyway, sorry to the Roy family for the atrocities. Even if you guys are atheist, I wish God to help you through these hard times.